I was browsing around Wikipedia and found a whole bunch of different directions of anarchism (as is to be expected) but strangely I didn't find any article about something like transhumanist anarchy or maybe some kind of anarchy that replaces bureaucracy by computers or anything like it - just anything that uses of modern technology to reduce friction in society while preserving individual freedom.

You aren't to likely to find a grip of folks around this site who see technology as ultimately liberating, though we might see it as a chance to dismantle the mansion using the masters' tools. (ooooh, I went there...)

I am not going to write a full answer but I might posit that transhumanism (so far as I understand it) is based on levels of technological infrastructure that are incongruent with anarchy.

tel me more about why you think transhumanism, bureaucracy and technology lead to more anarchy, and I will respond.

yea, i'm glad to have this question here, 'cause i'd like to have a more rounded series of answers, but our tendency so far has been toward the green part of the anarchist spectrum.
whatever pro-tech anarchists exist they are more likely to be sindicalists or redly. it would be great to have a good dialogue/throw down along these issues, but mostly the two crowds don't mix, even on websites.

The red anarchists have reddit/r/anarchism, which has 40,000 subscribers. I post there very often, and seem to be well-respected generally, even with the label "anarcho-primitivist" on my username. I'm not particularly combative though in that forum. They don't tolerate much anti-civ analysis, but often support eco and indigenous direct actions. The anti-primitivist circlejerks and transhumanist fantasies do crop up every few moons, but it's not as bad as other places like @news comments or libcom. This site though really is a welcome counterpart where not every sentence requires a debate over premises.

As I already said bureaucracy originally was about doing social bookkeeping without giving the bookkeeper too much power. Most people here probably agree that this ultimately failed.
I have some background (although much less of it than I would like) in programming and mathematics. I long ago came to the conclusions that communication has two largely disconnected functions, the first being personal expression and the other the sharing of information (this also covers organization of projects in which multiple people are involved). The first one probably isn't a matter for technology but how to do the second efficiently and (even more important) with as few opportunities for misinterpretations as possible is thoroughly explored in informatics. I think that the use for this science is by far not limited to computers.
When multiple people converse with each other with the objective of reaching some goal they might want the others to clearly understand which goal they actually want to achieve and what they think is acceptable behaviour to achieve that goal. You can shift the emphasis on those parts of the problem around as you want - living together is probably more about acceptable behaviour than about clear goals. Of course there might be other things you might want to communicate clearly instead of being particularly personal.
Science can be used to define languages which might help in this regard. I think languages like this might be most useful if multiple groups interact with each other, in a sense to replace diplomacy with something that depends more on mutual interest then on the personal skill of a diplomat to represent his cause clearly or to deceive another party. Also such a language opens those processes up to actual bugtracking so you can check whether an agreement actually achieves what it was designed for.
To give an example: object oriented design might help with keeping the interna of how one commune functions out of a debate with another commune about how land can be used while providing just the necessary information to resolve the issue quickly without drifting off to unrelated topics.
I don't think of these languages as being spoken but rather as being written like some mathematical proof.
I do not think that those kind of languages should be the only tool (because that obviously would exclude most non-technical people) but rather a supplementary one.

Technology can be used to streamline the kind of communication that offers no joy for those having the conversation. It helps no one to loose precious time over necessary social bookkeeping (I think that such a thing exists, like voting or checking what was achieved of planned goals) and then shifting it off to specialists because everyone else just looses the motivation, which would kinda be very detrimental to the anarchist idea.
As said before you can also do sanity checks on decisions. SAT-solvers might be useful to check for inconsistencies (which *will* cost much time if they're discovered later) and just keeping an organized map of decisions and positions in a Wiki can help to understand how your social surroundings work.
Again, technology should be just a supplementary tool.

Another aspect is work. To increase human wellbeing it is desirable to be able to do work you are passionate about. I think that undesired work is mostly undesired because it is highly repetitive and thus boring. Those kinds of work can be automated. Again, automatization is mostly a question of joy - efficiency is a secondary concern and judging by what passionate people achieve it should follow from joy, so taking work away when it can be done by a person that wants to do it is not desirable.

I tried to keep it short (I guess I failed) and I hope I showed how science and technology can help in an anarchic society.

Or in short: I once thought that a good subtitle to "The Hacker Ethic" would be "A Guide To Anarchy" although the author seems to believe in the Free Market. I still think this way although I am by no means any kind of anarcho-capitalist.